Opposition grows to California‚Äôs food labeling bill

What is in this article?:

With the news that the deceptive and costly California food labeling measure has qualified for the November ballot, a broad coalition opposed to the measure reiterated its efforts to educate voters about the serious loopholes, lawsuits, flaws and consumer and taxpayer costs associated with this poorly written measure.

More About:

With the news that the deceptive and costly food labeling measure has qualified for the November ballot, a broad coalition opposed to the measure reiterated its efforts to educate voters about the serious loopholes, lawsuits, flaws and consumer and taxpayer costs associated with this poorly written measure.

The measure would ban the sale of tens of thousands of common and perfectly safe grocery products that contain genetically engineered (GE) ingredients, unless they are specially repackaged, relabeled or completely reformulated just for our state. More than 300 studies have been done on GE foods which have been deemed safe by respected food scientists and regulators worldwide.

“This measure is deceptive and poorly written. When voters learn about the arbitrary exemptions, the self-serving provisions authorizing new frivolous lawsuits against family farmers, food providers and grocery stores, and when they learn it’s going to increase grocery costs and taxpayer costs, we’re confident they’ll reject it,” said Jamie Johansson, an Oroville farmer who grows olives to make olive oil. Mr. Johansson is also second vice president of the California Farm Bureau Federation. “Family farmers are part of the growing coalition that has come together to defeat this deceptive and costly initiative.”

Arbitrary Loopholes Exempting Foods that Can Contain GE Ingredients

The ballot proposition inexplicably gives special exemptions for about two-thirds of the foods people eat every day, even foods which can contain GE ingredients.

Beef, chicken, pork, eggs, and dairy like milk and cheese are exempt from the labeling requirements even though most animals are fed GE grains. Alcohol is exempt even though it may contain GE ingredients. Foods sold in restaurants are exempt even though the exact same foods sold in a grocery store would require labeling. The exemptions are spelled out in the official Title & Summary prepared by the state attorney general, found here.

“This measure is riddled with loopholes and special exemptions that make no sense,” said Bill Dombrowski, president & CEO, California Retailers Association, “We don’t think requiring labels on foods made using modern biotechnology are necessary. But creating a hodgepodge and nonsensical labeling regime is only going to confuse and mislead consumers.”

A Boondoggle for Certain Trial Lawyers

This measure would create a whole new category of lawsuits allowing any private citizen to sue claiming a family farmer, grocer or food company has violated its labeling provisions. According to the non-partisan California Legislative Analyst (LAO), “In order to bring such action forward, the consumer would not be required to demonstrate any specific damage from the alleged violation.” Link to the LAO Review can be found here.

In fact, the measure was drafted by a trial lawyer who has experience writing ballot measures and then using its provisions to sue small businesses. A previous measure he helped write, Proposition 65, has generated nearly $500 million in legal fees and settlements over the past two decades. His law firm and the associations affiliated with his law firm have received more than $3 million in Prop. 65 legal settlements and fees in the last 10 years alone.

“This deceptive ballot measure will allow anyone to sue small businesses and family farmers without any proof of a violation or damages,” said Tom Scott, executive director of California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse. “At a time when California’s economy is struggling to create jobs, the last thing we need is more shakedown lawsuits that hurt small businesses.”

Thank you very much for providing an alternative point of view on the food labeling measure. My personal feeling is that out-of-state donors should not be allowed to pay to influence ballot measures in other states. That said, Joseph Mercola is dispensing some very sound advice. The FDA has written him letters? Well, the FDA must be pretty busy doing that, because they're not taking the time to test the radioactive fish that have been swimming the Pacific since Fukushima.

Is the Council For Biotechnology Information opposed to sharing information about genetically modified foods?

This piece is inaccurate in many ways. First, over 90% of consumers desire labeling. Second, labeling does not prohibit Cotton growers or others choosing to pay for GMO technology from growing and selling their products. Third, most California farmers will benefit from GMO labeling as all California vegetables and fruits are non-GMO except the Sweet Corn that is Roundup Ready that may be grown by some growers. Fourth, important markets for California - especially Rice, milk, Fruits, Vegetables and Herbs are strengthened by this requirement as the wholesale and retail customers in the US and export markets continually express desire for certainty that these products are not GMOs.
Is it useless to protect the most important markets that we California farmers have???? Is it expensive to require NO CHANGE to labels for nearly all California products? Yes, processed foods made with GMO Corn Syrup (a very unhealthy alternative to the sugars in our California Fruits) would be affected. But that could easily lead to better sales for processed fruits that use California fruit juices to add flavor to the product, yielding better sales and healthier consumers.
This article is the least factual item I have ever read in Western Farm Press on the GMO issue. Informing consumers of what they have asked for yields lots of benefits for California Agriculture and helps get them on our side when we need allies. Should we not think in those terms and not become defensive and strike out with falsehoods? By the way, the initiative was written the way it was to protect farmers, dairymen and ranchers and unlike the article states, farmers were among the team that wrote the initiative. Compliance would simply require stating if GMO ingredients or varieties were used for a product and as noted only positive effects would occur for all of the most important food crops from California.

Frankly, as a consumer I am for INCREASING food labeling. I want to know exactly what I am putting into my body and into the body of my children and ingredient labeling has been a wonderful tool to control the amount of sugar, salt and chemicals that end up in my body.
It's not perfect, by any means. There is still a lot of deceptive labeling as growers and manufacturers continue to try to hide the "bad" ingredients by giving them "nice sounding names".
"High Fructose Corn Syrup" sounds a lot healthier than "Sugar", for example.
But because of food labeling and iphone apps like "Foodicate" I have been able to make better choices about what I buy.
And I no longer have rely on the food industry's misleading terms like "fat free", "low calorie", "nutritious", "fortified", "fresh".

I can understand why the food industry would oppose this measure.
They've spent a lot of money developing GE foods and they don't want consumers to be able to choose.

I find your corporate attitude out of step with 90% of Americans... And, GMO has NOT been proven safe. Monsanto has run poorly designed experiments & pays BIG $$$ to keep information from the general public. They are EVIL, Monsanto is most hated corporation for a reason...

This article majorly funded by the "biotech industry", i.e., Monsanto, Bayer and Syngenta just for starters. So what that Mercola funded $800,000.? Monsanto spends that every morning just by opening their offices that are on every habitable continent on the planet.
This bill will only strengthen the relationship between consumers and small business. Despite what this article says, many small grocers don't want to feed their families GE foods either. More produce will be bought from California growers and less from imported sources of questionable origins.
This will also not stop a producer from labeling their product as "rBST free" as in the case of Vermont Dairymen who Monsanto used their "Corporate Personhood" right to free speech to turn back the labeling in their state.
If it's Organic, it's labeled Organic. If it's conventional (sprayed, treated with non-organically approved) then no label is required. If it's GMO, it's labeled GMO. What's so hard about that? It's only confusing because biotech has retained it's veil of secrecy to brainwash the public with the money it got from ripping off farmers and consumers globally.

Yet I think the people have the right to be informed, no matter the cost. Labeling is a good thing, it helps us all be more aware of our choices, it helps us stay healthy and organized. As a customer I'd like to know everything possible about the food I buy, it's only fair.